Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s war on free will

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 284 posts

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#151

Post by goialoq »

ihuman wrote: post #122
ameister14 wrote: post #11

This was written so disrespectfully and dismissively of programmers, hackers and engineers that I have a hard time reading it, despite my extreme distaste for Facebook. >In the labs of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) during the 60s and 70s, they broke any rule that interfered with building the stuff of early computing, such marvels as the first video games and word processors. Also, Calling a 33 year…

I am out of the loop. How did Silicon Valley ruin his life?

Here's his side of the story:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/when-si...

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#152

Post by javajosh »

root_axis wrote: post #101

I wish people would stop contributing to the Facebook mythos that elevates a social media platform into some kind of software based deity. It's just a website, it's not a threat to "free will" any more than a cigarette or coke addiction is a threat to "free will". People recite grand expositions regarding how "I stopped using facebook and it changed my life forever! I've never looked back!"... wonderful, but I want t…

Strictly speaking, Facebook is a screen ('screen' being a technical term for the physicality of a digital experience). We can say that, to a good approximation, the sum total of our experience of the world beyond our immediate experience comes through screens. In this way, we say that all media is a screen.

So, there is your first order experience - your apartment, your car, the road on the way to work, your office, the restaurants and cafes you like, your friends; and there is everything else, ALL mediated by a screen. The world at large, how it looks to you, what you know about it, all mediated by a screen.

Facebook is not just a website to millions (billions?) of people. It is THE screen that represents THE most valuable, pleasurable part of their life - their friendly and familial relationships. What makes FB so potent is that it makes these relationships more efficient, and in some sense safer, and erodes that first-order offline experience of relationship, which makes ALL participants more dependent on the screen experience!

When you see a group of kids at a cafe hunched over their phones, or a couple on a date hunched over their phones, what do you think they are looking at? What first-order experience are they giving up? Is a thing that can literally steal your real, first-order life away from you, and in such vast numbers, really "just a website"?

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#153

Post by grzm »

lushn wrote: post #141
root_axis wrote: post #101

I wish people would stop contributing to the Facebook mythos that elevates a social media platform into some kind of software based deity. It's just a website, it's not a threat to "free will" any more than a cigarette or coke addiction is a threat to "free will". People recite grand expositions regarding how "I stopped using facebook and it changed my life forever! I've never looked back!"... wonderful, but I want t…

THANK YOU. I find the "I deleted Facebook" meme incredibly odd. It's a website, you don't have to visit. You don't have to check/install the app. Do you really have no free will of your own? Yes, the feed can be annoying, so just fill it up with things you like. Unfollow annoying people, like pages and groups that interest you, and suddenly your feed changes entirely. If you have to delete Facebook to stop checking i…

I agree that the title of the article is hyperbole. I believe what people are reacting to is an increased recognition of the how effective advertising in general and social media in particular is at persuasion and how it affects our behavior. Free will or no, advertising is effective or companies wouldn't pay for it and Facebook wouldn't have the revenue stream it does.

You can choose to handle this a number of ways. One is to modify one's use of Facebook as you recommend. Another is to decide there's not enough value in Facebook to justify that effort. A reaction to the idea that you're having your buttons pushed can also weight one's decision to break off entirely. How long would you choose to stay in a relationship if you feel like you're being manipulated? On reflection you might behave rationally, but I can sympathize with some level of emotional response. It might be over the top, but I understand where it's coming from.

You seem to be choosing the latter with respect to HN: you'd rather leave than put in the effort to make it worthwhile for you. That's completely your choice. If HN notified you of content it thought you'd be interested in or reminded you to check on updates, you'd probably disable those as well. That's effectively what people are doing when they delete the app.

People also recognize that Facebook's utility is inherent in having as many people as possible on the platform, and that they may miss out on some events and information when people post only via Facebook (crikey, there's a meme for that too: FOMO). Part of "I deleted Facebook" is reminding people that not everyone is on Facebook.

One could uncharitably argue recursively that they find your type of post incredibly odd, that one doesn't have to respond to such memes, that one should exercise their free will (and self-restraint) to just let it slide. That would also fall into the same trap: it fails to recognize that you're responding in a similar way for the same reasons: you've had your buttons pushed in a way you yourself recognize as unconstructive. And you're taking action on it, exercising your free will.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#154

Post by crpatino »

tallanvor wrote: post #147
jerkstate wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's the happy medium for you, but for others, the happy medium is emailing, calling, or texting your friends to set up a dinner party or a round of golf, making sure to call your folks every week or two, and not worrying too much about those whose only effort to spend time with you is having clicked a button months/years ago.

If you don't communicate with the people, you can unfriend them. I'm only on there for messenger now - calling is expensive when your friends are in different countries, and while texting is mostly free these days, it costs money when traveling. Email... People just don't check it as much anymore. So you're left with messenger.

If you are going to unfriend them, you may as well not use FB at all.

My wife's happy medium is, basically, to not login until a close relative or friend (usually her mother) phones and tells her there's something there to check; and at that time to batch process the latest events in her wall. This way she still is in contact with everyone she cares about, but it only eats a couple of hours of her week, at well defined blocks of time.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#155

Post by lurker456 »

root_axis wrote: post #129
bamboozled wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a website, it's a complex and sophisticated media and marketing platform with many, many different features and all of that comes with a bunch of pros and cons.

That sounds like marketing speak. It's a website; yes it's a very sophisticated one, but the crux of all that sophistication (for the user) comes down to a web page with posts on it. There are pros and cons to everything so I'm not sure that's a very useful observation, but, once again, Facebook is nothing special compared to e.g. services provided by google, microsoft or amazon. I think that is the reason you see so…

facebook is as much just a website as the catholic church is just some buildings with a book. there is a lot behind it.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#156

Post by indigochill »

htrp wrote: post #148
dabockster wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure a classic tech death from a disruptor is possible Well, FB's brand itself is super toxic these days, so you could probably build something on the whole "we're not FB" premise

diaspora tried that.... it has next to 0 adoption

The investment to get going with Diaspora is too high.

Facebook is simple. You sign up, your friends sign up, and then you connect (possibly automatically since Facebook can often determine you know each other).

My (possibly incorrect) recollection is that Diaspora requires figuring it out for yourself (I recall them spending too much time on selling how great it is up front when they should just shut up and get you settled first). Then you have to sell it to your friends.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#157

Post by Chardok »

ryandrake wrote: post #117
bamboozled wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a website, it's a complex and sophisticated media and marketing platform with many, many different features and all of that comes with a bunch of pros and cons.

...that you can choose whether or not to use.

Thats not entirely true. Facebook will build a profile on you through like buttons and information shared from family/friends/acquaintances whether you choose to or not.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#158

Post by makomk »

athenot wrote: post #65

> The problem is that when we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to the organisations that run the machines. This is the money quote of this article, and it's been on my mind quite a bit as of late. More than ever, we live in a world where there are many forces ready to take full advantage of our laziness. It takes a bit of introspection to really understand the tradeoffs that are appr…

Of course, in the pre-internet age we were forced to outsource our thinking to the press instead, it's just that you're less likely to see them running articles about how they themselves are waging a war on our free will.

Re: Facebook’s war on free will

#159

Post by Barrin92 »

makomk wrote: post #158
athenot wrote: post #65

> The problem is that when we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to the organisations that run the machines. This is the money quote of this article, and it's been on my mind quite a bit as of late. More than ever, we live in a world where there are many forces ready to take full advantage of our laziness. It takes a bit of introspection to really understand the tradeoffs that are appr…

Of course, in the pre-internet age we were forced to outsource our thinking to the press instead, it's just that you're less likely to see them running articles about how they themselves are waging a war on our free will.

I didn't really entrust my personal information, my friendships, my CV or anything else to the press. In fact, there was no institution comparable to social media that so intimately, on a personal and individual level interfered with my life.

Sure, reading certain newspapers or others was and is a way for people to shape their views of the world, but it is very much a one way relationship. I can read what I want or I don't, but there is no intimate connection.

Also the press at least is in part a civic institution, it's held responsible to at least some common standard. Social media, which is entirely private and corporate operates in opaque fashion bound to basically nothing but their own interest.

Post reply on HN